4 ms·

Intolerable Genius: Berkeley's Most Controversial Nobel Laureate (2019)

22 points by oli5679 2y ago

not_your_vase 2y ago
Somewhat reminds me of Bob Widlar - who was an alcoholic, aggressive, confrontation-seeking jerk, but at the same time he was also one of the biggest genius of the last century, when it comes to electronics engineering.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Amorymeltzer 2y ago
It's mentioned, but his memoir, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, is absolutely worth the read. It's a quick read, bouncing between inventing PCR and meeting aliens. His views on all sorts of things—HIV/AIDS is the big one—were atrocious, but his life (as told by him) was a fair balance for getting to understand the guy.
- timr 2y ago
  Agreed. A very interesting book, and your brain won't get infected with crazy if you read it.
timr 2y ago
"Intolerable" Ugh. Here's a crazy thought: instead of trying to cancel everyone who says something you disagree with, maybe you can just remember them for the thing they accomplished, and ignore the parts you don't like? It's embarrassing that this headline is in a magazine published by a major university. People are complex. When you throw out everyone for the worst thing they ever said or did, you don't have anyone left -- other than the people who haven't disappointed you yet [1]. [1] or worse...the people whom you refuse to see honestly.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  The funny thing is that the article remembers him, and it remembers him for both his good and bad attributes. I think that’s really the way to do it. “Oh yeah that guy was an asshole adulterer and invented PCR.”
  - timr 2y ago
    Yeah, I know. But the headline is so egregiously anti-intellectual that it's embarrassing to see it in an academic context. And it's worse, because they're doing it to cater to their audience. Then of course, they had to make it explicitly political, with the inclusion of this quote: > Schekman, who calls Mullis’s Nobel a “complete fluke,” compares him to the man in the White House. “He’s the molecular biology equivalent of Donald Trump in terms of his personal behavior,” he says. And they end the article with this line: > Maybe the best way to remember Mullis and his invention of PCR is to make some space for the others who made it a reality. It's just childishness. Whatever other bad things the man did, he really did invent PCR, which changed the world forever.
  - RGamma 2y ago
    I know this one aspiring painter. Shame he got rejected from the academy. Mhh, was there anything else?
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      I think it’s very interesting that hitler was an aspiring painter, really gives a window into his psychology. I’m glad they bothered to write that down in the history books. Is your argument that they shouldn’t have, or are you just reflexively responding to some wrong perception I’m attempting to launder the reputations of bad people.
- Amorymeltzer 2y ago
  To pick two items: >His views on AIDS didn’t just look bad, they may have had deadly consequences. By the late 1990s, South Africa was in the midst of a catastrophic AIDS epidemic. President Thabo Mbeki, under the spell of AIDS denialists including Mullis, declared that AIDS was caused by poverty, not HIV. Many South Africans were denied access to treatment. A 2008 study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes estimated that as a result, 35,000 babies were born with HIV and 330,000 South Africans died of AIDS unnecessarily. and >At some point during their interview in his apartment, Mullis grabbed her by the neck and tried to forcibly kiss her. She rebuffed him. But he tried again. And again. He asked her, “How can you say you know me without sleeping with me?”
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
MrMcCall 2y ago
> Schekman, who calls Mullis’s Nobel a “complete fluke,” compares him to the man in the White House. “He’s the molecular biology equivalent of Donald Trump in terms of his personal behavior,” he says. Priceless. The key to that ahole's life is that his use of LSD damaged his sense of morality and comprehension of the truth. As glorious Finland have demonstrated, the ability to learn how to know when something is true or not is within not only our human capacity, but within a pedagogic system. On the negative side of this human ability, we can also choose to believe any horsesh_t our minds latch onto, as we can always to choose to reject any evidence we deem "inconsequential". The general populace's inability to recognize a liar then makes them susceptible to charismatic fools and charlatans. That the power structures of our societies reward and protect those "accomplished" tricksters is another layer to the problem. We are all the sum-total of the moral choices of our lifetime, which have an inertia in opposition to our ability to veer in a different direction. As Don Juan tells Castaneda, the use of "power plants" (hallucinagenic drugs) is overall bad for the body and should be avoided. Don Juan only used them on Carlos because Carlos was so stubborn, and needed the jolt, if the book's premises are to be believed.
giardini 2y ago
I thought it would be Robert Trivers who had some rough spots in his academic career, but I was wrong! Trivers is in biology, which has no Nobel prize. Trivers instead got the Crafoord Prize, which awards $500,000. See what Steven Pinker said about Trivers' ideas: https://www.edge.org/memberbio/robert_trivers https://www.edge.org/memberbio/robert_trivers
MrMcCall 2y ago
> In Esquire Yoffe wrote that “… genius and gentility don’t always share the same chromosome.” That writer is ignorant of the truth. The truth is that very few people want to take responsibility for their ideals, attitudes, and behaviors, plus their self-evolution or lack thereof, of them, with respect to their compassionate treatment of others. That's always wherefrom the cult of personality springs forth. The vast majority of such aholes have nothing to blame but their choices and their selfishness and their lack of seeing any problem with them, although there are physical problems in a very small percentage of people that can cause damage to one's instincts, moral compass, and self-control, among them the results of various substances.
throwaway81523 2y ago
It's about Kary Mullis. I was trying to remember if Duesberg had won a Nobel.
wenc 2y ago
Veritassium did a recent video on Kary Mullis and PCR. It's one of the most accessible videos on PCR I've ever come across (I have no background in biology), and also an interesting history of Kary Mullis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaXKQ70q4KQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaXKQ70q4KQ
_yb2s 2y ago
What an uninspired and dishonest view of Mullis. This basically presents him as an idiot that just got very lucky once - a "complete fluke," that had an unfortunately awful personality... and then goes on to try and spread the credit for his invention to other people that did trivial and straightforward parts of proving he was right after the fact. You cannot separate his weirdness from his ability to invent PCR: his unconventional way of thinking is exactly what made both his discovery and his behaviors and personality. It is quite frankly, disgusting that our culture and scientific community cannot accept intellectual diversity and neurodiversity, and people like him that are different enough to actually bring a new perspective are systematically pushed out. If they're accepted at all, it is the Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer story- only as long and because they are useful, while constantly needing to provide massive value that others don't have to provide, just to exist in the same spaces while being neurodivergent. I've had the opportunity to know and work with a few people that were just as "weird" as Mullis and had ideas just as good- but all were pushed out fast enough they didn't get to contribute anything and/or the credit was stolen entirely. Of two of the smartest and weirdest colleagues I've known as scientists- one is now an off the grid subsistence farmer in the middle of nowhere, the other dead by suicide. Both were capable of far more than any of the people that pushed them out.

22 points by oli5679 2y ago

Somewhat reminds me of Bob Widlar - who was an alcoholic, aggressive, confrontation-seeking jerk, but at the same time he was also one of the biggest genius of the last century, when it comes to electronics engineering.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Amorymeltzer 2y ago

It's mentioned, but his memoir, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, is absolutely worth the read. It's a quick read, bouncing between inventing PCR and meeting aliens. His views on all sorts of things—HIV/AIDS is the big one—were atrocious, but his life (as told by him) was a fair balance for getting to understand the guy.

timr 2y ago
Agreed. A very interesting book, and your brain won't get infected with crazy if you read it.

timr 2y ago

"Intolerable" Ugh. Here's a crazy thought: instead of trying to cancel everyone who says something you disagree with, maybe you can just remember them for the thing they accomplished, and ignore the parts you don't like? It's embarrassing that this headline is in a magazine published by a major university. People are complex. When you throw out everyone for the worst thing they ever said or did, you don't have anyone left -- other than the people who haven't disappointed you yet [1]. [1] or worse...the people whom you refuse to see honestly.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
The funny thing is that the article remembers him, and it remembers him for both his good and bad attributes. I think that’s really the way to do it. “Oh yeah that guy was an asshole adulterer and invented PCR.”
- timr 2y ago
  Yeah, I know. But the headline is so egregiously anti-intellectual that it's embarrassing to see it in an academic context. And it's worse, because they're doing it to cater to their audience. Then of course, they had to make it explicitly political, with the inclusion of this quote: > Schekman, who calls Mullis’s Nobel a “complete fluke,” compares him to the man in the White House. “He’s the molecular biology equivalent of Donald Trump in terms of his personal behavior,” he says. And they end the article with this line: > Maybe the best way to remember Mullis and his invention of PCR is to make some space for the others who made it a reality. It's just childishness. Whatever other bad things the man did, he really did invent PCR, which changed the world forever.
- RGamma 2y ago
  I know this one aspiring painter. Shame he got rejected from the academy. Mhh, was there anything else?
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    I think it’s very interesting that hitler was an aspiring painter, really gives a window into his psychology. I’m glad they bothered to write that down in the history books. Is your argument that they shouldn’t have, or are you just reflexively responding to some wrong perception I’m attempting to launder the reputations of bad people.
Amorymeltzer 2y ago
To pick two items: >His views on AIDS didn’t just look bad, they may have had deadly consequences. By the late 1990s, South Africa was in the midst of a catastrophic AIDS epidemic. President Thabo Mbeki, under the spell of AIDS denialists including Mullis, declared that AIDS was caused by poverty, not HIV. Many South Africans were denied access to treatment. A 2008 study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes estimated that as a result, 35,000 babies were born with HIV and 330,000 South Africans died of AIDS unnecessarily. and >At some point during their interview in his apartment, Mullis grabbed her by the neck and tried to forcibly kiss her. She rebuffed him. But he tried again. And again. He asked her, “How can you say you know me without sleeping with me?”

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

MrMcCall 2y ago

> Schekman, who calls Mullis’s Nobel a “complete fluke,” compares him to the man in the White House. “He’s the molecular biology equivalent of Donald Trump in terms of his personal behavior,” he says. Priceless. The key to that ahole's life is that his use of LSD damaged his sense of morality and comprehension of the truth. As glorious Finland have demonstrated, the ability to learn how to know when something is true or not is within not only our human capacity, but within a pedagogic system. On the negative side of this human ability, we can also choose to believe any horsesh_t our minds latch onto, as we can always to choose to reject any evidence we deem "inconsequential". The general populace's inability to recognize a liar then makes them susceptible to charismatic fools and charlatans. That the power structures of our societies reward and protect those "accomplished" tricksters is another layer to the problem. We are all the sum-total of the moral choices of our lifetime, which have an inertia in opposition to our ability to veer in a different direction. As Don Juan tells Castaneda, the use of "power plants" (hallucinagenic drugs) is overall bad for the body and should be avoided. Don Juan only used them on Carlos because Carlos was so stubborn, and needed the jolt, if the book's premises are to be believed.

giardini 2y ago

I thought it would be Robert Trivers who had some rough spots in his academic career, but I was wrong! Trivers is in biology, which has no Nobel prize. Trivers instead got the Crafoord Prize, which awards $500,000. See what Steven Pinker said about Trivers' ideas: https://www.edge.org/memberbio/robert_trivers https://www.edge.org/memberbio/robert_trivers

MrMcCall 2y ago

> In Esquire Yoffe wrote that “… genius and gentility don’t always share the same chromosome.” That writer is ignorant of the truth. The truth is that very few people want to take responsibility for their ideals, attitudes, and behaviors, plus their self-evolution or lack thereof, of them, with respect to their compassionate treatment of others. That's always wherefrom the cult of personality springs forth. The vast majority of such aholes have nothing to blame but their choices and their selfishness and their lack of seeing any problem with them, although there are physical problems in a very small percentage of people that can cause damage to one's instincts, moral compass, and self-control, among them the results of various substances.

throwaway81523 2y ago

It's about Kary Mullis. I was trying to remember if Duesberg had won a Nobel.

wenc 2y ago

Veritassium did a recent video on Kary Mullis and PCR. It's one of the most accessible videos on PCR I've ever come across (I have no background in biology), and also an interesting history of Kary Mullis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaXKQ70q4KQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaXKQ70q4KQ

_yb2s 2y ago

What an uninspired and dishonest view of Mullis. This basically presents him as an idiot that just got very lucky once - a "complete fluke," that had an unfortunately awful personality... and then goes on to try and spread the credit for his invention to other people that did trivial and straightforward parts of proving he was right after the fact. You cannot separate his weirdness from his ability to invent PCR: his unconventional way of thinking is exactly what made both his discovery and his behaviors and personality. It is quite frankly, disgusting that our culture and scientific community cannot accept intellectual diversity and neurodiversity, and people like him that are different enough to actually bring a new perspective are systematically pushed out. If they're accepted at all, it is the Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer story- only as long and because they are useful, while constantly needing to provide massive value that others don't have to provide, just to exist in the same spaces while being neurodivergent. I've had the opportunity to know and work with a few people that were just as "weird" as Mullis and had ideas just as good- but all were pushed out fast enough they didn't get to contribute anything and/or the credit was stolen entirely. Of two of the smartest and weirdest colleagues I've known as scientists- one is now an off the grid subsistence farmer in the middle of nowhere, the other dead by suicide. Both were capable of far more than any of the people that pushed them out.